Marketing Myopia - Image Sells | von Aditya Dedhia

1 Monat, 1 Woche her - horiblocks · 4 Min. Lesezeit

Marketing Myopia - Image Sells

Case Study: Fashion

The notion goes that the higher quality a product is, the less reliant it is on being customer-oriented. Whilst that may be sound, in theory, it is not always true, especially if the brand lacks substantial brand goodwill. Take the example of the luxury fashion brands; would you still be willing to purchase a $600 belt that matches the craftsmanship of Louis Vuitton (LV), with the caveat being that it is from a new startup? My guess would be that even if it were half price at $300, consumers would be very reluctant to purchase it, and only if it would be in excess of 70-80% discount rates would then consumers be willing to take a punt for what its worth - the sole cost of goods.

A common mistake in business is conflating product quality with demand. So what is the deal here? How can brands such as LV become a success by selling objectively overpriced items and have consumers who have an inflated view of the item’s value? The answer is marketing. What LV may be selling you is their high perceived quality, but what the consumer really ends up buying is the brand’s perceived image. It is a matter of irrational consumer behaviour; everything from the logo to their marketing campaigns is catered toward portraying an elitist image. This is not to say quality does not matter, but that it does not supersede the importance of marketing. It does not matter how good a product is if there is no attention. According to LV’s holding organisation LVMH, they experienced organic growth of 36% (LVMH).

Suppose you consider that Supreme also sells equally marked-up clothing at a comparable level of quality and excuse the difference in their scales of operation. In that case, you might be wondering why Supreme is not embracing its sales growth. Unfortunately, the sales trends of Supreme have been shrouded in secrecy by their holding organisation VF. I would only imagine strong growth would follow a positive statement about Supreme's stance. In fact, there was no mention of their sales, which were outright excluded with the following rationale, "exclude the contribution from the Supreme brand through the one-year anniversary of the acquisition" (VF Corporation). Instead, VF released expectations of generating strong sales of $600 million for 2022. I say this statement offers nothing more than some wishful thinking.

Nevertheless, the matter of whether this was intentional to hide their less than ideal market growth is trivial. The more pressing issue is that consumer perception of Supreme's relevance has been on a steady decline. This is evident in all forms; their new clothing 'drops' are no longer sold out in a matter of minutes, nor is Supreme the burning topic amongst the streetwear fanatics (Servantes, Ian). Why is this so? I aim to attribute this in two ways. One that Supreme, from Levitt's standpoint, has failed to adapt to the changes in its target market. In essence, the hype of "exclusivity" can only last for so long, and it appears that the market is catching up to this realisation. Two, in MIT professor Dan Ariely’s language, Supreme has set up a lackluster anchor that associates exclusivity with prestige rather than the brand itself (Ariely, Dan). Supreme is in the clothing business but is actively distancing itself from its target market, a target market whose attention was only brought by short-term hype. If Supreme is to escape the niche target market it has engulfed itself in, it must rethink its marketing strategy in a way that is geared toward creating a memorable and long-lasting brand image (not merely on the backs of some celebrities). For now, only time will tell how this persistent stance on exclusivity and the adamance on a “no mainstream ATL marketing strategy” will play out in the long run.

117

Blöcke

Thread-Diskussion